Dramatic SFB: Alliances and mechanics

Michael Helbig admgrraven at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 20:11:19 PDT 2021 

In GWO this turn my draw was horrible! Most of the scenarios my opponent
has major consequences if I attack them. Therefore I decided not to even
allocate all my ships. I have one major ally only because he is on the
opposite side of the USA to me. It's been extremely hard to
coordinate battles with our schedules. I like some allies but this game
there have been very few. Brent has kept me on my toes by being very
belligerent towards me. LOL So far I like how this campaign has gone.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 7:20 PM Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

> That is what I tend to do with diplomacy.. Trade of some scenarios  so i
> can send ships elsewhere.
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:18 PM Majead Farsi <majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Speaking for myself the main reason why I choose to make deals is because
>> by losing an encounter, whether by not sending ships there or not sending
>> enough means that I not only gain nothing but also lose points. Get rid of
>> losing EP and you will see less deals being made. Borders are not a big
>> deal but losing EP is. This I would guess may be one of the reasons for
>> deal making.
>> Again speaking for myself, I will never try and win a scenario where my
>> opponent is going to lose a substantial amount of EP unless forced to. Not
>> everyone is like me, including yourself!
>> We each play for pleasure, some like to make deals and fight a few
>> battles and some like not make deals and fight everything.
>> I do not have the time to ever fight every battle, so I have to make
>> deals on turn by turn basis to reduce the number of battles I maybe
>> involved with. Its what suits me.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 13:03 Marcel Trahan, <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Majead,
>>>
>>> There is a big difference between resolving battles by diplomacy and
>>> making alliances.
>>>
>>> To diplomatically resolve battles is normal and expected. You are
>>> outgunned or you outgun your opponent and offer him to leave is ok, because
>>> it can speed up the campaign. (i still love to blow up a few ships when i
>>> am outgunning my opponent or trying to escape with my ships when i am
>>> outgunned, those can be very fun scenarios to play)
>>>
>>> What  i am talking about is more of 2 or more players making alliances,
>>> deciding beforehand how to share the scenarios, and only sending very low
>>> BPV units to reap the EP, and increasing those borders as much as possible.
>>> When a player has 20+ friendly borders and lots of police ships that are
>>> there to cover those friendly borders, this is where the campaign gets
>>> boring.
>>>
>>> An example would be you and me having a 12 scenarios border, you build
>>> 6-8 FXE at 26 BPV each and i do buy 6-8 SNP at 55 each (smallest ship i can
>>> build) and we do each send ships to the borders that we are defending and
>>> whenever we have a chance to get a BORDER scenario, we take it. This would
>>> end up each making on average 240+ EP per turn without risking any ships
>>> and using useless inexpensive units. After 5-6 turns of doing that, we
>>> soon get to 20 common borders, building another 4 cheap units and reaping
>>> on average 600+ EP each
>>>
>>> Once a few players start doing that, the other players will only have
>>> the option to start doing the same thing or they will quickly get
>>> relegated and fall so much behind that they cannot compete in the other
>>> scenarios. It takes 4-5 turns of doing that before the campaign turns into
>>> a stalemate and grind to a stop.
>>>
>>> If players want to have a strategic/diplomatic campaign, go that way or
>>> play F&E. If players want a SFB scenario generating campaign, just don't
>>> make alliances, manage your borders (not too many or too little) and send
>>> ships to try to get as many EP as you can and try to remove as many EP's
>>> from your opponent as you can. I love to be the attacker in those Colony
>>> Raid or Convoy Raid (yum yum, minus EP) or i will try to take as many enemy
>>> ships as i can when defending those ones.
>>>
>>> I currently have 1 SUB carrier group (I ended up with the SUB because
>>> the SUP-K that i had was deemed to require escorts, so i refitted it into a
>>> SUB) that could probably take any of my opponent fleet and i send it to a
>>> critical scenario and as for the rest, i will send 1 or 2 heavy ships (MC
>>> 2/3+) or a few smaller ships to most borders, hoping to outwit my opponents
>>> or have just enough ships to have a minimum chance of winning the scenario,
>>> hoping that my opponent did not send a big fleet.
>>>
>>> This turn, i am sending ships to 16 of my 22 borders, 3 of them with 4
>>> ships, 1 with 3 ships, 5 of them with 2 ships and the rest with only 1
>>> ship. I do hope this will end up having a few scenarios to play out. My 3
>>> or 4 ships fleet are spread among 4 opponents and my 2 ships fleet are
>>> spread among the other 3 opponents. Single ships are spread among all of
>>> them.
>>>
>>> This is way more fun than making alliances, reaping EP and sending huge
>>> fleets on the few non-allied scenarios that would be left. At least that
>>> way, i get to play scenarios, which is why i join those campaigns.
>>>
>>> Matt's last campaign turned out to be an alliance based campaign (and i
>>> was part of that alliance based campaign with my Hydrans and i plead
>>> guilty) and at the end, nobody was playing any scenarios because we where
>>> dealing with 1500+ bpv fleets and who wants to play those huge fleet games
>>> that takes weeks to play.
>>>
>>> I do sincerely hope that this campaign will not turn that way and ends
>>> up to whomever as more allies.
>>>
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 7:03 AM Majead Farsi <majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think there are alliances ever. Its just talking to resolve
>>>> some battles quickly. Speaking for myself, I can never play all battles as
>>>> I do not have the time. If we did not solve some battle results
>>>> diplomatically the game turn would be too long and I personally would start
>>>> to loose interest. I do not want to have to wait 6 months for all the
>>>> battles to resolve. Some have time to play out their battles but some will
>>>> not be able to. Two things will happen, 1, the campaign turn will take too
>>>> long to complete and 2 due to length of time people will drop out due to
>>>> holding up the campaign or just getting bored.
>>>>
>>>> Campaigns have diplomacy. Individual scenarios where the 2 sides have
>>>> predetermined ships and points get fought out. The format of what we are
>>>> playing is campaign. On the next campaign I suggest we use something like
>>>> FMJ to create more even encounters and battles and also keep some diplomacy.
>>>> Majead
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 11:13 Marcel Trahan via SFBdrama, <
>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think for now the best solution is to go with the honor system. Just
>>>>> all agree not to make alliances.
>>>>> Send ships to try to get as much EP's as possible without losing too
>>>>> many.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all players agree to go this way, it will create a lot of scenarios
>>>>> where we will enjoy playing which is the goal of the campaign.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for myself, i am not in any alliance and i will not make any in the
>>>>> future. I don't care if i win or lose the campaign as long as i can
>>>>> have fun playing the scenarios.
>>>>> I will even fight battles where i am outgunned just for the chance of
>>>>> winning the scenario if the conditions allow it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 turns ago, i attacked the prospecting raid with 2 SKA against 1
>>>>> Seltorian CA and 2 Seltorian DD defending. I was outgunned and i had lots
>>>>> of fun playing it. I pulled it out but almost lost a SKA doing it. That was
>>>>> way more rewarding then making alliances and trying to build the biggest
>>>>> fleets possible which ends up not playing any scenarios at the end.
>>>>>
>>>>> This turn, i will be sending ships to 16 of my 22 borders, leaving
>>>>> only 6 borders unattended. I hope this will generate some interesting
>>>>> scenarios even if it means that i am spreading my forces thin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's all agree not to make alliances and see where it leads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:13 AM Wayne Power via SFBdrama <
>>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best answer I have found for scenario battles to happen is to offer a
>>>>>> player to have a scenario battle (give out BPV or number of ship hulls to
>>>>>> get battles that are 50/50 or 60/40 balance in BPV)
>>>>>> On Monday, 23 August 2021, 10:19:53 am AEST, Gregory Flusche via
>>>>>> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boy did my little thing about diplomacy spark this thread?  The only
>>>>>> time i use diplomacy's like now when i have way to many borders and way to
>>>>>> few ships. Then it is a trade off of points. I do not add borders with some
>>>>>> one just to  get more points. Sooner or latter all them borders will come
>>>>>> back to haunt me
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no easy answer of course... but I still enjoy the game and
>>>>>> how to play... :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:29 PM David via SFBdrama <
>>>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me you could reduce alliances by just setting the EPV
>>>>>> payments to
>>>>>> more negative than positive for both defender and attacker. For
>>>>>> example:
>>>>>> Whoever loses or doesn't show up gets -150bpv whoever wins gets +50
>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>> People have a natural tendency to feel losses more than gains and
>>>>>> besides
>>>>>> that reflects war's real profits. It isn't a zero sum game, let alone
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> positive one. You might have to boost the base income to balance
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, some will decide 'ok you win 3 and I win 3 so we each get +150
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> -450' plus our base of 450 but doesn't that make dealing sound less
>>>>>> appealing than 'you win 3 and I win 3 so we each get +200 and -50'?
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> result is likely fairly close to EPV by kills. I'd probably change
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> turns to balance things out given growing fleet sizes too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried doing a 'contest every sector and no alliances' approach and
>>>>>> discovered it worked horribly. Lasted about a turn before I started
>>>>>> concentrating force as much as allowed by the rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: SFBdrama <sfbdrama-bounces at lists.mattnet.org> On Behalf Of
>>>>>> sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 1:11 PM
>>>>>> To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> Subject: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 192, Issue 7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send SFBdrama mailing list submissions to
>>>>>>         sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>>>         http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>>>>         sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>>>         sfbdrama-owner at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> "Re: Contents of SFBdrama digest..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    1. Re: GWO Turn 7 (Wayne Power)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 1
>>>>>> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 03:42:02 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> From: Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au>
>>>>>> To: Gregory Flusche <shagrat1960 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>,  Majead Farsi
>>>>>>         <majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>,  Brent Stanton
>>>>>> <brentzkrieg39 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: GWO Turn 7
>>>>>> Message-ID: <1797979472.597435.1629603722309 at mail.yahoo.com>
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Orion Observation (final report turn 7), ..the carrier went to the
>>>>>> Gorn
>>>>>> zone, and 2x DW are going to the Hydran space..
>>>>>>     On Saturday, 21 August 2021, 08:24:21 pm AEST, Wayne Power via
>>>>>> SFBdrama
>>>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I usually try and set up a battle (scenario) or two each turn (using
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Orion Observer giving information, mostly correct).
>>>>>> , and this turn I now may send a force toward tall enough Hydran
>>>>>> border if
>>>>>> they want to battle the Paravians? ( Hydrans only have about 12 ships
>>>>>> left),
>>>>>> the Paravians can send a carrier group with a warp signature of 2.0 to
>>>>>> scenario 1182.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Saturday, 21 August 2021, 08:48:43 am AEST, Gregory Flusche
>>>>>> <shagrat1960 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I have thought about this for a while now. More on victory
>>>>>> conditions and
>>>>>> generating fun interesting?battles. As well as doing as Matt wants.
>>>>>> Generating fun stories as well,?
>>>>>> 1 set fleet sizes.. build a legal S8 fleet with the points given. No
>>>>>> tugs as
>>>>>> they and other ships like Minesweepers are given in a scenario.?
>>>>>> 2 victory conditions are set, Such as adding up EPV/BPV of kills.
>>>>>> Using
>>>>>> basic victory conditions, So much for a destroyed/captured or
>>>>>> crippled ship.
>>>>>> When one player exceeds three times?or whatever?of other players is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> winner..? Could of course use Matts empire score as well as a way of
>>>>>> winning.
>>>>>> I like the idea of getting points for what you kill. When I played
>>>>>> ancients
>>>>>> Miniatures, Tournament battles were judged by enemy units routed
>>>>>> destryed?or
>>>>>> broken. You won if you had the higher?kill ratio. This promoted
>>>>>> fighting.?
>>>>>> If you do not attack You get no points.?
>>>>>> You can still have allies. So you can mass more ships elsewhere. You
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> get?points for killing units added to a scenrio?such as bases and
>>>>>> ground
>>>>>> units. This also means getting points for killing fighters/shuttles.
>>>>>> .?
>>>>>> 3 each player would get so many EPV depending?on the number of
>>>>>> borders to
>>>>>> buy replacement ships for those lost in combat.. Then the border/no
>>>>>> border
>>>>>> battles can matter as? Size of fleet can be determined by number of
>>>>>> borders,
>>>>>> ( The government?will give the admiral so much to spend on a fleet )?
>>>>>> 4 all this means to win you must fight battles. Fleets dependent on
>>>>>> borders.... as well as everyone having about the same EPV means more
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> battles to be fought, Mind You can still send what ships were you
>>>>>> want and
>>>>>> well it does happen.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just some thoughts guys..?
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 6:01 PM Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the idea of a set amount of EP each turn (the EP each turn
>>>>>> could go
>>>>>> up or down at a campaign year end based on how many victory/loss in
>>>>>> battle
>>>>>> each player had) Perhaps each empire needs to win certain types of
>>>>>> scenarios
>>>>>> to also advance EP.
>>>>>> At present in these types of Campaigns some players make small deals
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> now and then, others players have allies from the beginning and have
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> for the whole Campaign.
>>>>>> I think also if there could be a limit on the size of each border
>>>>>> empire,
>>>>>> and the overall total number of borders.    On Saturday, 21 August
>>>>>> 2021,
>>>>>> 06:56:45 am AEST, Majead Farsi via SFBdrama <
>>>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  yep I remember that one, and that's why I think your format would be
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> for encouraging players to fight a few as well. I like to do a bit of
>>>>>> both!
>>>>>> Maybe allowing a certain number of encounters to be resolved by
>>>>>> diplomacy
>>>>>> but everything?else must have at least 1 shop?+ like your format
>>>>>> allocated
>>>>>> to it. It would be fair I think. For myself I have not had any
>>>>>> alliances but
>>>>>> have made some logical diplomacy choices depending on the random
>>>>>> encounters
>>>>>> where the gain and losses have been mutual.The only reason why
>>>>>> players try
>>>>>> for diplomacy?is because they do not have enough ships to cover all
>>>>>> borders
>>>>>> that need covering and allocating ships to cover the ones that can be
>>>>>> fought
>>>>>> will leave them open to overwhelming encounters. Again your format
>>>>>> solves
>>>>>> that issue??.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Majead
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 20:48, Marcel Trahan <
>>>>>> marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Majead,
>>>>>> I do understand the need for sporadic diplomacy based on the
>>>>>> encounter type.
>>>>>> But if it gets like the previous campaign, where allies were?sharing
>>>>>> 17 to
>>>>>> 24 borders, increasing them every turn and only sending Police ships
>>>>>> to pre
>>>>>> negotiated?borders, then it becomes unbalanced. I remember some
>>>>>> players that
>>>>>> had 35-40 total allied borders and enough small ships to cover half
>>>>>> of them,
>>>>>> those players were getting so many EPs every turn that they could
>>>>>> send 9-10
>>>>>> ships fleets to the few other borders where they?did not have any
>>>>>> alliances.. I think i did not play any scenarios?in the last 4 or 5
>>>>>> turns of
>>>>>> the campaign. And once a few players started that process, other
>>>>>> players had
>>>>>> to?do the same to try to keep up with the other alliances. And i was
>>>>>> guilty
>>>>>> as well of doing it and it is why i am not doing it in this campaign.
>>>>>> Currently, this campaign is still at the point where you try to
>>>>>> outwit your
>>>>>> opponents, Sending ships where it matters and creating interesting
>>>>>> scenarios. If we start alliances, then, it becomes only brute force or
>>>>>> whoever has more allies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcel
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:26 PM Michael Helbig <admgrraven at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have lately only allied with players that are almost totally
>>>>>> incompatible
>>>>>> with my schedule. Since changing jobs my time has gotten more
>>>>>> flexible so
>>>>>> need fewer allies. Also learning to enjoy the game again.?
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:48 PM Majead Farsi via SFBdrama
>>>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I kind of agree with you Marcel,?to a certain?degree. I do think that
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> certain amount of diplomacy has to be in it. The campaign moves
>>>>>> forward by
>>>>>> granting Ep's to the winner of encounters. Some encounters are fair
>>>>>> on both
>>>>>> sides and some are not, some have fair EP distribution some don't.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> forces us to use diplomacy wherever?possible.?To not use diplomacy
>>>>>> you would
>>>>>> need to remove the variation in the EP's granted. All should be
>>>>>> equal. All
>>>>>> encounters give the same EP advantage. To remove diplomacy entirely
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> give every empire a certain amount of EP each turn, no reduction or
>>>>>> increase
>>>>>> and measure the campaign by another means?of measuring wins and
>>>>>> losses. By
>>>>>> Campaign end see who has the best ratio of wins and losses and claim
>>>>>> them as
>>>>>> winners.?
>>>>>> I think your format FMJ does not get rid of diplomacy entirely?but it
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> limit it. I would like to play a later campaign with your format
>>>>>> where we
>>>>>> are able to field at least small carrier groups, which would require a
>>>>>> higher initial?EP to build with.
>>>>>> Just my thoughts!
>>>>>> Majead
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 17:11, Marcel Trahan <
>>>>>> marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you Majead,
>>>>>> But i do remember the last few campaigns where allies were?building
>>>>>> lots of
>>>>>> cheap units, opening borders between themselve, splitting
>>>>>> scenarios?to get
>>>>>> the most EPby sending cheap units while massing huge fleets to the
>>>>>> few enemy
>>>>>> borders that were left.It ended up that for the last few turns, we
>>>>>> did not
>>>>>> play any scenarios at all. That was my main reason behind?FMJ rules.
>>>>>> If it goes that way, it means that alliances are the only way to go
>>>>>> and we
>>>>>> end up not playing any scenarios, which kinda defeats the purpose of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> game.
>>>>>> As for myself, i don't have any allies and will not get any. I am
>>>>>> here to
>>>>>> play encounters?and have fun.
>>>>>> Marcel
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:13 AM Majead Farsi <
>>>>>> majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To prevent, that Marcel we need to adopt your encounter format which
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> advantages and has some disadvantages ( I think the disadvantages can
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> solved!) but it does create more battles. Diplomacy is part of most
>>>>>> campaigns.
>>>>>> Majead
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 15:43, Marcel Trahan <
>>>>>> marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Romulan Star Empire is RTA.
>>>>>> Diplomacy kills the spirit of the game. It turns the campaign from a
>>>>>> scenario?generation for SFB to a who gets the most allies and builds
>>>>>> impossible fleets to battle against.
>>>>>> Hope this one does not turn into a hoarding game.
>>>>>> Marcel
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 8:23 AM Majead Farsi via SFBdrama
>>>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Federation Horde are RTA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 23:58, Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama
>>>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tribunal 13 is ready to advance... unless I get more diplomatic cries
>>>>>> On
>>>>>> Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:28 PM Wayne Power via SFBdrama
>>>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GWO turn 7 Y179 Orion Observer reports,
>>>>>> no Paravian ships at the Tall enough Hydran border area1182 Organian
>>>>>> Treaty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> battle group Albatross moving toward the oasis planet "Lighthouse" to
>>>>>> defend
>>>>>> from a Gorn planet crusher.
>>>>>> battle group "Fire" defending one of the last Paravian convoys on the
>>>>>> NERF
>>>>>> border.
>>>>>> battle group "Sword" with a warp signature of 2.0 heading toward the
>>>>>> Romulan
>>>>>> border.
>>>>>> scattered elements of battle group Petrel at the Dino-Mites border.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Friday, 20 August 2021, 12:45:13 am AEST, Wayne Power via
>>>>>> SFBdrama
>>>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Shearwater Albatross Petrel Paravian RTA?
>>>>>> Battle Groups,
>>>>>> Sword
>>>>>> Albatross
>>>>>> Petrel
>>>>>> Shearwater
>>>>>> Fire
>>>>>>     On Thursday, 19 August 2021, 02:34:49 pm AEST, Brent Stanton via
>>>>>> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  The People's Front of Hydrax is RTA.
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>   ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>   ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/2021082
>>>>>> 2/6853ec6a/attachment-0001.html
>>>>>> <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210822/6853ec6a/attachment-0001.html>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> <a href='sfbdrama.mattnet.org'>Dramatic SFB</a> campaign chatter list
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> End of SFBdrama Digest, Vol 192, Issue 7
>>>>>> ****************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210823/5d989b5c/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the SFBdrama mailing list